Slashdot Mirror
Royal Jordanian Airlines Bans Use of Electronics After US Voices Security 'Concerns' (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Royal Jordanian airlines banned the use of electronics on flights servicing the U.S. after government officials here expressed concerns. Details are scant, but CNN is reporting that other carriers based on the Middle East and Africa may be affected as well. The news broke when Royal Jordanian, a state-owned airline that operates around 500 flights a week, posted this cryptic notice on its Twitter feed. The ban, which includes laptops, tablets, and video games, but does not include smartphones or medical devices, is effective for Royal Jordanian flights servicing New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Montreal. A spokesperson for Royal Jordanian was not immediately available for clarification. Meanwhile, CNN is reporting that Royal Jordanian may not be the only carrier affected by these new security provisions. Jon Ostrower, the network's aviation editor, just tweeted that as many as 12 airlines based in the Middle East and Africa could be impacted. A Saudi executive also tweeted that "directives by U.S. authorities" could affect passengers traveling from 13 countries, with the new measure set to go into effect over the next 96 hours.
+1
No one seems to blame Hillary for Trump, but she cockblocked all the better candidates with bribery and then proceeded to put up the worst campaign ever against Trump.
Why are we blaming Russia? It's her fucking fault. Trump is her legacy now.
C'mon now. HRC was a terrible candidate, but against Trump? She was Churchill. I honestly can't believe the later was a viable option for half the country.
Seriously, what the living fuck?
It was because Trump promised something, anything. What did Hillary promise? Nothing.
C'mon now. HRC was a terrible candidate, but against Trump? She was Churchill. I honestly can't believe the later was a viable option for half the country.
Half the country is very concerned with job loss due to immigration (and for some, increased crime in their neighborhoods). Most candidates responded to these concerns - the hot-button single issue for a huge swath of voters - with "shut up, you racist". Trump didn't. Why is it in any way surprising he had a strong base?
Only Trump and Cruz even presented an immigration plan of any kind. It was obviously going to be one of those two who won the GOP primary, but I'm still surprised that it was Trump. I think credibility of anyone who works in DC is just that damn low now with the American working class. So low they took "crazy" just to get "outsider".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Your emails have cost us yet again. Everything that's gone wrong for over a year has been ALL HILLARY'S FAULT!
E-mails where the least of her failures.. Remember, she lost the election to Donald Trump of all people... She lost to a guy who had never run for ANY public office before.... She lost to an opponent even though she had significantly more money. She lost, even though she didn't have a serious primary challenge and had the nomination sewed up long before her opponent. She lost even to a guy who said the stuff on that Access Hollywood tape that came out as a great October Surprise. She lost to a guy who got into stupid twitter fights though out the whole campaign. She lost the election yet won the popular vote because she campaigned in the wrong places... Hillary was horrible as a candidate...
Even more, this isn't the first time she lost to a novice, trying to be president, she lost in 2008 to a freshman Senator......
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
HRC lost the election, Trump did not win it. It was remarkable that Trump got elected.
I voted for neither of them (in the state I live in, it really doesn't matter who I vote for for President due to the EC and the solid political demographics in my state) and instead voted for a third party candidate whose party platform (not necessarily the candidate) better aligned with my political preferences. However, if I lived in a state where my vote had any chance of impacting the outcome, I would have found it an agonizing choice.
Neither Clinton or Trump are honest so there was little difference there.
Clinton was much better at evading and triangulates more expertly. She, for example, refused to answer a question, even when pressed, during the debate because any answer would have cost her some votes and gained her some votes and she wasn't sure which answer was the best "net gain" (that was when she essentially refused to state her opinion on if the Second Amendment supports an individual or a collective right -- she of course in reality subscribes to the discredited "collective rights" interpretation that was popular decades ago when she was coming of political/legal age). Trump on the other hand is crude and unsophisticated and says whatever random thing he's thinking at the moment. Generally I have to give advantage to Trump here -- Trump's lies and misconceptions are more likely to be exposed and obvious to more of the populace than Clinton's would be.
Clinton was much more technically qualified to be President of the United States, although supporting some questionable foreign policy decisions (such as the Iran deal) does not give me extreme confidence in her decision making skills. So, advantage to Clinton on this aspect.
However, what would probably have tipped me towards Trump, if I was faced with making the awful choice, would be the Supreme Court. I think judges should apply the law, not make it or fix it to match their social, religious, or political preferences -- if the law is broken, in their opinions they can suggest that maybe the legislature might want to look at fixing it but until it's "fixed", they should apply it. This President was likely to have the opportunity to seat two or three justices on the Supreme Court (obviously Scalia's replacement is one of these) and these are lifelong appointments that could shape the court for 30 years, long after the day-to-day stench of a Clinton or Trump term in office is hopefully little but a a trivial pursuit question (barring WWIII). Trump proposed a list of possible nominees who tended towards reading the Constitution and the law as written, not as they wish it were written. Clinton has consistently chosen to advocate laws that pretend the Second Amendment does not exist or is, at a minimum, not of the same "class" as, for example, the First Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment or Fifth Amendment. Therefore, I had little confidence that she would nominate SCOTUS justices who, themselves, followed the "apply the law, do not make it or fix it" judicial philosophy.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
The only jobs we lose to immigrants are low pay shit jobs. The good jobs are not list to illegals, not taxes, not even the EPA, but to machinery that works nearly 24/7/365.
Your. Shovel. Can't. Compete. With. A. Dump. Truck.
Something doesn't compute for me with that argument. Isn't the current unemployment level ~4%?
Disclaimer: I do not live in the US.
Half the country is very concerned with job loss due to immigration
Yet they seem far more interested in kicking out the immigrants than in punishing the companies who are hiring them. An immigrant can't take your job unless your employer gets rid of you and hires the immigrant. Instead of ICE showing up at courthouses to round up and deport people, maybe the Department of Labor should start showing up at corporate headquarters and carting those folks off.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
You might want to go learn about H1B visas and the American workers who have been forced to train their H1B replacements.